I don't see it that way. You cannot compare things today to how things were then. Choosing an issue was not the problem then. They had the same deal we do today. Those in power were not caring or listening to the ones who pay their salary. Considering Slavery was not the only issue, it's a no brainer, one would go with their state. We know how well that worked out then, so I don't see much chance of it happening now but some days I'd sure think it worth the effort.

So true. I wonder how informed they were back then even to consider an issue.

The ones who pay their salary are the rich, both then and now. They only listen to the money.

I think you are correct that the people in a State would just side with the States choice. But, I think that for a border State, example Arkansas, you have people on both sides which probably came about with the power in the region, and the issues that affected where they lived. Example Arkansas in the north did not have a need for slaves so sided with the union whereas southern Arkansas in cotton country need the slaves so sided with the south. Arkansas as a whole I think listened to the money of the south.

Comparing today to then as alot of meaning to me. First it lets me know where my g-g-grandfather sided. I now must determine why. I am learning that survival has alot to do with how people act. I seriously doubt that north Arkansas was fighting for the issues. I think they were fighting to stay alive and sided with the side who would best meet that need, or went along with the majority of people in the local area. From my findings many of the locals fled the area because it was not safe. I will post a letter from the day from a union officer in that area after this post.